 | Do you agree that President Obama should significantly raise US gasoline taxes during his term in office? | The Oil Drum: Europe | A Prince and Four Peaks: Peak Oil, Gas, Coal and Uranium |  |
Advice To Pres. Obama (#3): Change you must
Posted by Euan Mearns on January 19, 2009 - 10:55am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Dear President Elect Obama,
The chart shows US crude oil production (blue) and consumption (red) and shows that the USA has been living well beyond its means for over 40 years. This lies at the heart of current global problems creating economic, social, political and environmental imbalance on an unprecedented scale.
Translating these figures to $ shows how allowing this imbalance to persist for far too long has destroyed the US economy. Granted, these existing problems are too large to solve within the term of a single presidency, but your actions in the first 100 days and ongoing thereafter must singlemindedly focus upon eliminating US dependence upon imported oil. This inevitably means reducing oil and energy consumption whilst boosting indigenous primary energy production in a sustainable manner. Some of the policies you must enact will be unpopular, but as the behavior and expectations of individuals changes slowly, so will the attitude of society - until eventually the benefits of these tough policies will shine through and be embraced by society as a whole.
By way of introduction, I am a European, living in Aberdeen Scotland. I was born in Asia and lived in Norway for 8 years. I have traveled the world, including visits to the USA on many occasions. I have BSc and PhD degrees in Earth Science, ran my own business for over a decade and for 3 years now have written articles for The Oil Drum. Much of what I have to say here is based on information gleaned from and interacting with the readers of this blog.
In this letter my focus is on US oil consumption in relation to transportation policies.
Energy prices
Politicians and political advisers need to accept that higher and rising energy prices are a good thing and are indeed inevitable since we have now used much of the cheap and easy to access reserves of fossil fuels. Higher energy prices will provide the capital to invest in new energy systems. It is therefore imperative that the profits from high energy prices are invested in energy and not frittered away buying back stock and paying excessive bonuses to executives who had good fortune to be in the right place at the right time.
The public need to be educated that higher energy prices are a good thing. The choice is between having more expensive energy or not having enough energy.
An inevitable consequence of higher energy prices is that energy consumes a larger slice of national GDP and individual disposable incomes. This means that other sectors of the economy will suffer and market forces will dictate that the high energy consuming parts of the economy will suffer most - tourism, motoring, airlines, construction. People can and will learn to be happy and content doing other things.
Raise gasoline taxes
Raising gasoline taxes is likely to be one of the most unpopular policies any US president could implement and will be a stern test of your leadership and resolve. I recommend that you serve notice to the American public that gasoline taxes will be raised incrementally to be on par with European taxes by the end of your presidency.
Raising gasoline taxes will reduce US oil consumption, reduce US oil imports and trade deficit, raise income for the federal budget and reduce pollution. I am aware that many US citizens who favor higher gas taxes are equally in favor of cutting income taxes so that the outcome is neutral. I do not agree with this since your country (and mine) is nearly bankrupt and needs to raise taxation revenues to balance the books.
Individuals' budgets may be balanced by reducing gasoline use through exclusion of unneccessary journeys and through energy efficiency savings.
The USA has in fact been playing on an uneven playing field unwittingly created by the failure of successive administrations to tackle excessive energy consumption. This has brought your motor industry to its knees. Thus, raising gasoline taxes will create a more even playing field for US industry to compete upon.
Lower speed limits
Lowering motor vehicle speed limits will reduce US oil consumption at a stroke. This is in fact an energy efficiency measure since vehicles are more fuel efficient when driven slowly. Additional benefits will include fewer serious and fatal motor accidents and less pollution.
This should be viewed as a short term holding measure until your economy has time to respond to the greater goal of permanently improving energy efficiency by engineering.
Energy efficiency
I suggest that your government set very tough targets for the average energy efficiency of new vehicles sold in the USA and serve notice that these targets will be made tougher for every year that passes. Your fine engineers' minds will then become focused on miles per gallon or kilometers per joule instead of large size, power and speed.
Battery powered electric vehicles are likely the most energy efficient option at present and focusing on efficiency should automatically select for the most efficient energy options at the expense of fanciful ideas. Energy efficiency must be defined to include the efficiency of energy production** discussed by my colleague Nate Hagens in his letter to you last week.
The efficiency targets must be very tough and aim to eliminate US oil imports by the end of your second term in office. Your Arab allies around the Arabian Gulf may be alarmed at this prospect but should be assured by the fact that the market for their dwindling oil reserves will be sustained elsewhere by countries that do not have the indigenous energy wealth of the USA and who must import energy to survive. These developing countries may be reassured by the fact that they do not need to compete with the USA for these dwindling, finite fossil fuel resources and this will benefit US stature on the world stage.
** In fact, the energy efficiencies of our energy production systems are not well understood and your administration should consider funding, with urgency, a program that aims to determine the energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) of all OECD energy production systems.
Air travel
Air travel for all in the OECD has been one of the miracles of the last 50 years. We have all been "Living like Gods", enabled by extremely generous tax exemptions on jet fuel and government subsidies to airline manufacturing industries.
Air travel as we know it is not sustainable as oil production either runs down or becomes prohibitively expensive. By biting the bullet and taxing jet fuel on par with gasoline you are therefore creating a more level playing field in transportation. This will encourage individuals to be more thoughtful about the need to travel long distances and it will encourage the airline industry (manufacturers and operators) to design more fuel efficient systems.
In doing so there is a danger that great inequality is created between those who can afford to fly and those who cannot. I therefore encourage you to consider designing a tradeable energy rationing system that will bestow upon all individuals equal rights to travel. Those who cannot afford to do so may sell their rights to those who can creating greater equity whilst maintaining a market based system. As my colleague Nate Hagens pointed out to you, It is energy, not money, that powers our economies. Our economies will one day in the near future be founded to a much greater extent upon tradeable energy schemes - those countries that realize and plan for this now will be in pole position for the future.
Electrified transportation
In the future, the working man and woman will still want to be able to travel. It will simply become necessary to choose to travel less using more energy efficient means. Electrified rail transportation is likely the most efficient solution for short range commuter travel and longer range business and leisure travel. Your country has growing unemployment and the need for major civil works projects to provide a route to recovery. It is essential that the vast sums of borrowed capital you plan to spend are spent wisely. Air travel may still cater for E-W transcontinental and inter continental travel. But N-S travel between your conurbations on E and W coasts could happen on high speed electric rail links. Likewise, commuter travel may happen on light rail links. Equipped with high speed internet access, travelers will learn to enjoy railway journeys where they are free to work, surf the net or to watch movies of their choice. I suggest you visit France at the earliest opportunity and learn from their electric transportation revolution. This of course may further heal diplomatic wounds between the US and Europe suffered at the hands of the outgoing administration.
The mantra of energy efficiency
Finally Mr. President, I would like to leave you with this departing thought. In the future, the most successful countries will be those that use energy most efficiently. These countries will be able to afford higher energy prices and so will be able to secure supplies ahead of those countries that are less efficient. Energy efficiency therefore will increasingly equate to energy security. Energy use per unit of GDP created will be lowest in the most energy efficient nations and they will therefore be able to produce the greatest wealth. This applies equally to both energy production and energy consumption.
There are very many more energy-related issues that need to be discussed - these have been and will continue to addressed by my colleagues here at The Oil Drum. The world requires true leadership now more than at any time during my lifetime. The general public do not in fact know what is in their best interests and may vocally oppose the introduction of unpopular policies using an increasingly ignorant media to mobilize this opposition and to make life very difficult for those in the Obama administration. It is the responsibility of leaders to resist such opposition and to steer a path towards the greater good, firm in the knowledge that the decisions being made are the right ones, made by the greatest minds your great country has to offer, and that have been made for the right reasons.
US oil production, consumption and oil prices taken from the BP statistical review of World energy.
ps
It is known that energy efficiency may lead to greater and not less energy consumption as described by Jevons' paradox. This has certainly been the case in a world with growing abundance of cheap fossil fuel. In an energy declining world, Jevons' paradox must fail, but the principles may be modified so that energy efficiency may enable an equilibrium state where populations may be sustained using less energy. Your policies must ensure less consumption whilst aiming for greater equality.
Link: Other "Advice to Pres. Obama" Energy Policy Posts in this Series
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2010 (3)
- October 2010 (6)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (7)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (7)
- May 2010 (2)
- April 2010 (8)
- March 2010 (4)
- February 2010 (6)
- January 2010 (3)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (8)
- October 2009 (12)
- September 2009 (6)
- August 2009 (5)
- July 2009 (11)
- June 2009 (8)
- May 2009 (16)
- April 2009 (10)
- March 2009 (7)
- February 2009 (10)
- January 2009 (15)
- December 2008 (9)
- November 2008 (9)
- October 2008 (9)
- September 2008 (13)
- August 2008 (10)
- July 2008 (14)
- June 2008 (23)
- May 2008 (16)
- April 2008 (12)
- March 2008 (16)
- February 2008 (9)
- January 2008 (13)
- December 2007 (13)
- November 2007 (16)
- October 2007 (22)
- September 2007 (8)
- August 2007 (9)
- July 2007 (16)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (7)
- April 2007 (7)
- March 2007 (10)
- February 2007 (10)
- January 2007 (12)
- December 2006 (9)
- November 2006 (15)
- October 2006 (4)
- September 2006 (5)
- August 2006 (5)
- July 2006 (9)
- June 2006 (5)
- May 2006 (10)
- April 2006 (9)
- March 2006 (13)
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Dear EUAN
WHAT IS YOUR
-
1 PERSONAL CARBON FOOTPRINT [ APPARENTLY YOU HAVE PLENTY USED OIL / GAS. AIRPLANES etc..... ) many traveled
- by feet and bicycle ?????
- 2 what is YOUR PERSONAL TOTAL QUANTITY OF OIL BURNED FOR YOUR PERSONAL LIVE
THANKS
DO YOU HAVE THE ATTITUDE CORRELATED WITH YOUR WRITINGS ??
IN FRENCH WE SAID
FAITES CE QUE JE DIS
NE FAITES PAS CE QUE JE FAIS
DO YOU HAVE THE ATTITUDE CORRELATED WITH YOUR WRITINGS ??
Well for nearly 3 years I've been working on a voluntary basis writing articles for The Oil drum, working from home.
I drive a 15 year old Volvo, which is kept in good efficient order (replacing it would use much energy), and drive about 5000 miles / year.
I do not object to paying high European gasoline taxes and would not object to paying more tax on air travel, though I don't fly that much these days.
My home is well insulated and likely well above average in terms of energy efficiency.
I do recognise, however, that achieving energy efficiency costs much money, and is beyond the pocket of many folks, and would like to see our UK government provide greater subsidies for introducing energy efficiency measures to the home.
Euan,
Relax, he's probably from France. You know how they are ...
;-)
don't the French also have the saying?: "nous considérons impoli de taper toutes les capitales"
Nice work Euan. Change is coming. We can hope for it to be bigger or in the right direction, but unfortunately we'll not likely get both.
APPARENTLY YOU HAVE PLENTY USED OIL / GAS. AIRPLANES etc.....
Euan's efforts here at TOD have created a mindshift among 10s of thousands directly (and untold millions indirectly) that are paving the way to a new understanding of;
1. Our impending liquid fuels risks
2. The courses of action we need to take to mitigate those risks
JOSEPH-EMILE, I suggest that you either provide information that shows how the risks can be mitigated, and the steps that you are taking, or realize that vous juste pissez dans le vent.
Euan, good post, keep fighting the good fight.
Euan,
I don't contest your post, but I have lost faith in politicians. Every time I have gained hope in the past it has been dashed! As you probably relise by now I am a cynic.
1) Third runway at Heathrow has been approved (BAU). Whether it ever gets built is another matter.
2) Europe to (or proposing to) offer folk money (= £1000) to scrap older cars for less polluting newer ones Hmm! The efficiency gains over the last 10 years has been very marginal. The energy used making new cars is vast. Lowering the speed limit would save much more fuel (as you state).
3)
. I agree, but they vote our leaders into power (or more correctly they vote them out). Is this a fundamental flaw with our democratic process?
To me at least, these posts are as much for people behind the scenes, future leaders, and raising the general bar of energy discourse for the future than they are really directed at current politicians. As dire as the economic situation is, we have a $50 million inauguration event - 4 times (I am told) the previous record. At a time when we have tough truths to convey to people about the status of our real assets, to be spending so much on a frenetic departure from the starting gate strikes me as ill-matched. Hope, if not followed through on in tenor and act, can do more harm than good. Dunno. If it were me, I might cancel the whole affair and say we need to change the way things are done in Washington and in our country - lets save that $50 million for 5 wind turbines off the Maryland coast, and get down to business.
But what do I know - I'm just a blogger...
Yuppers. No time like the present to... um... change. Or lead by example. Or, shucks, we could just have a big party intended to show how hopeful the future is!
4x bigger? Let's see... that's about 37 million... or 7,400 homes significantly more energy efficient or closer to being off the grid... or 7,400 acres of land bought and turned into farms/CSA's/co-ops... or grants to, say 37 towns or cities for renewable energy projects... or...
This bash is a the equivalent of, "Trust me. Really. This time is different."
Cheers
Sometimes you just have to party, besides the fact that these are funds donated specifically for the purposes of partying. There will be plenty of time for austerity once the part is over. Not that I think we are ready for austerity.
Gloom and doom 24/7 is not sustainable. Maybe this is just our last big Potlatch. I am as doomy and gloomy as the next person but even I can still remember how to dance.
Obama said yesterday that we are in tough times and will take all our efforts to fix the problems we have. My guess, however, that the problem, as we sees it, can be solved by pretty much getting back to where we came from with maybe a little green energy thrown in.
But this is America, folks, and Obama is the American President. If Obama knows the real truth, the truth that we need to downsize, telling the truth would have resulted in the inauguration of President McCain and VP Palin tomorrow.
If there are leaders out there suited for the times we live in, there is no way they could be elected President.
Not that I am not happy to see Bush go away and Obama replace him.
Regardless, I will use the mantra of Alan from Big Easy. Best Hopes for the Obama administration.
Ohhh. I see, this is leadership by....
Watch what I say and forget what I do.
My actions are not your actions.
Its called 'talking the walk but not walking the walk'. Its $#%^^&% bullshit.
Airdale-we now see the future by observing the present
Willa Cather, in either her novel O Pioneers or My Antonia, describes the scene of the crops being burnt from drought so that there is no hope of harvest. The farmer comes in the house and tells his young wife to pack a picnic. They pull the canned goods off the shelf and the family enjoys a hot summers day picnicing. Later the farmer tells his wife there will be no crop that year.
But he gifted his family that one summer's day picnic.
Who knows?
It's my understanding that the $50M is not derived from a slush fund of random money that Obama can simply divert to other uses. Many people have donated money to that account for the explicit purpose of holding an inauguration to mark both (1) the end of the Bush presidency (Hurray!) and (2) the election of an African American president, an historic event. What sort of trust would be engendered by turning to those donors and saying "thanks for the money, but the situation has changed and now I must spend this on something else"? Didn't Bernanke do this with the $350B of TARP money? What fans has he garnered as a result?
Making a fuss over the inauguration while Rome is burning all around seems a waste.
Back to the post- thanks to TOD for the letters series. I think it may help to show how the actions Euan outlines here have helped to increase the economic (an perhaps ecological) resiliency of nations that have followed similar paths. In other words, where is the role model?
The global population in aggregate has never been in global overshoot before this past generation.
YOU are the role model.
My question was, what nation's lifestyle should we use as a contemporary example of where the U.S. needs to be? Canada, US, Europe are all contributing disproportionately to the overshoot. Who is living today the way that (on average) Americans need to begin living to avoid catastrophe? The Moroccans? The people of Bhutan? Of Cambodia? Of Costa Rica? Can we illustrate their lifestyle, show how they live happily (assuming, as you have shown, that they are happy) and begin to modify our ways to emulate theirs? Make real what is otherwise rather abstract?
The France of 2020 might be a goal for the USA of 2030.
10+% of urban trips by bicycle, more by shoe leather and tram. Every town of 100,000 with a couple of tram lines, a TGV system and ordinary rail system that handle most trips and most freight, Urban growth boundaries, local agriculture, good quality and well prepared food :-) heat pump heating, low GHG emissions (nuke + hydro + solar + wind supply most of the energy in a society run primarily on electricity), and more.
Alan
And eating less meat on top of that. Of course, high discount rates might be difficult for some to overcome...
I think it was James Merkel in Radical Simplicity who estimated that the entire current world population could live at approximately the lifestyle of the average Parisian in the fifties. That doesn't sound too horrific to most, I would hope, although post-war France was no cakewalk.
Cuba was the only country to meet both minimal human well being criteria (low infant mortality, high literacy...) and sustainable living criteria in a study by WWF a couple years back.
The main point is that through most of human life and even human civilization the vast majority lived far below the "one earth" threshold. It is the human norm to do so. We are now living in the bizarrely extreme exception.
Change is coming--radical, wrenching change, in fact--but we collectively have some choice as to whether the change will be at least somewhat in our control or whether we will be completely the victim of the consequences of our former and current profligacy.
Yes, but Costa Rica and Uruguay both came very close.
Looking at those three countries, it appears to me that for the US to approach anything close to a "sustainable" economy, our per capita GDP would have to be somewhere around 25% of present levels.
Another way to look at it: In terms of real purchasing power, that is the same per capita GDP that the US had in 1941.
So, think about what life is like in places like Cuba, Costa Rica, and Uruguay, and think about what life was like in the US in 1941, and you just might be close to imagining what the long term BEST CASE scenario might be for the US.
I think we would be very lucky indeed if we ended up anywhere close to being that well off. People need hope though, and this is about the most hopeful scenario within the bounds of realism that I can imagine.
Add most aspects of modern technology to USA 1941/Costa Rica.
Computers, killer software, HDTV (lower cost than a radio in 1941, perhaps an average of 1/family, 19"- 26" perhaps most common sizes), internet.
High quality bicycles with some high tech (folding with carbon fiber/magnesium frames, etc.)
and so forth.
Alan
To some extent, yes. But there are lots of flies in that ointment.
I wonder how sustainable the manufacture of computers and other high tech electronic goodies really is? We might be able to keep some minimum manufacturing capability going for the highest priority stuff for a very long time, but I'm really doubtful if a lot of electronic gizmos are going to be part of the lifestyle of the average person a century or more from now.
Some have wondered here whether the internet will be sustained or not. As more people become poorer, the market penetration of computers into households will start to go into reverse. Powering server arrays is going to become more expensive. As more companies and institutions slash budgets, and as people buy less and advertisers thus advertise less, the growth of content on the web is likely to slow and might even start to decline. Thus, we might very well see Peak Internet within the next decade or so. How much must it decline before it goes below a critical mass and starts losing a lot of its value?
Materials science has made amazing advances. Long-term, however, the ability to recycle materials over and over again is likely to trump just about all other considerations. A bicycle frame made of solid tubular steel or aluminum might be inferior to some composite materials, but the fact that it can be melted down and the metal reused will be more important.
Life will be different than it was in 1941. There will certainly be some things that will be better, and also some things that are worse.
The "old story" for new microprocessors is that the first one costs $1 billion, the second one 25 cents.
I could see chips making a slight/not so slight retreat from maximum petaflops to a lower watts/gigaflop version with a longer service life and the world ending up with one, two or three standard designs. Still LOTS of "25 cents" microchips. Same for memory chips.
Once Moore's Law is revoked, and development plateaus, the marginal value of microprocessors *FAR* exceeds their marginal cost (25 cents + "packaging"). Conceive of a standard PC chip designed for low watts and multiple decades long service life and 1/10th or 1/100th the CPU power of "Peak Computers".
SPECULATION: Many server farms located in cheap renewable energy locations (Iceland, Brazil, Quebec/Labrador, Grand Inga, Tibet, Siberia, etc.) using lower power (and slower) chips (Google takes 2 to 120 seconds depending upon search criteria ???, and charges you the equivalent of 1 cent/second).
A world with three microprocessors (one with a monopoly on PCs, standard video, etc. on chip), and three types of memory chips should be able to meet the basic computing needs of a "2041" world. Perhaps produced in just a dozen factories around the world (dual source each type).
I think Magnesium has a greater future, as well as Lithium-Aluminum alloys (see recycling). However, a carbon fiber bicycle with an average daily service life of 35 years can "justify" some "one use" resources.
Best Hopes for A Sustainable Future,
Alan
There's a scary thought ... Peak Moore's Law with a decline following the peak.
It is plausible. Production of modern computer chips is a very complex process involving hundreds of specialized vendors. If just a few critical ones fall over the cliff, the entire house of cards (or computers chips in this case) comes tumbling down. Not something we want to wish for.
Best hopes it won't happen.
A world where one can only order a 80486 powered computer (options 2, 4, 8 and 16 CPUs) ?
HORRORS !!
Best Hopes for more efficient software,
Alan
If I remember right, the Nation of France is about the size of the State of Texas. The population density of France is dramatically higher than that of the USA.
Comparing France to the USA is comparing apples to oranges.
Urban areas can be made quite comparable, and the areas where most Americans live (california, Florida, East Texas, Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes, Mississippi & Ohio Valleys, etc.) can be comparable.
Yes, France has no Montana or Alaska, and those lightly populated areas have less to learn from the French experience. But (SWAG) 3/4ths of American do live in areas that can learn from France.
Alan
Nate,
It's the area under the curve that will get us in trouble.
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator.cfm?IndicatorID=199&country=CD#rowCD
Perhaps Sweden, Norway? Well-run economies, democratic governments which enjoy the trust of their polis. Agreed, energy use is still a little high at 50% and 75% N America per capita, though GHG emissions much lower and Norway is a huge petroleum producer and exporter which hurts their numbers disproportionately.
Hands up those doomers who'd like to make it India? That's a lot of what goes around here.
Did you see the BBC Question Time debate on this? 5 panelists - 3 politicians, Eddy Walsh CEO of British Airways and a Jewish journalist all wearing their environmental credentials on their sleeves. No one on the panel or in the audience doubted the environmental impacts of noise, local pollution and CO2 - and yet this proposal is to proceed. There was not a mention of energy decline and how this may impact Heathrow and air travel in 20 years time.
On the BBC iplayer for UK only
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gq673/Question_Time_15_01_2009/
I just had my old volvo fixed up in a country garage for £500. The quote from Volvo in Aberdeen came in at £2500. "They" really really want folks to buy new cars.
Democracy is floundering around right now. At some point, if things get really bad, then we have to hope that the population will follow true leadership.
I assume that you brought up the religion of the journalist for a reason, but then you didn't mention it later in your comment. I don't see how it relates.
His religion was irrelevant for the environment issue, but he was on the show as a Jewish journalist (i.e. editor for The Jewish Chronicle) as much as Eddy Walsh was on the show as the CEO of BA, and the 3 politicians were on the show as politicians.
Eddy Walsh and the politicians just happen to be more relevant to the Heathrow issue.
Euan could have said "5 panelists - 3 politicians, Eddy Walsh CEO of British Airways and someone else" but that sentence feels rather clumsy. He could also have named him and given his job title, but that is fairly irrelevant to the issue.
The other main topic discussed was Gaza - hence the Jewish Journalist on panel - Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard. And the CEO of BA is Willie (not Eddie) Walsh.
Euan,
A great post, very to the point, lets hope the advice gets translated into some action within the first 100 days. The US electorate may be ready to accept some radical changes in direction, and some personnel pain provided its shared by all.
Is our situation any better than the last time we had a 55 mph speed limit ?
Why not now ? .....because the auto addicted populace choose speed over energy efficiency and conservation ?
Historically, time was energy (more solar flows). In our current economy, time is money.
I discussed this in The Energy Return on Time
(Source)
Reducing speed limits will save energy, but at the cost of time. We need to optimize our returns on our most limiting resources. Given that all of us are on earth for a short span, time is really our INDIVIDUALLY scarcest resource, so any policy that constricts that will be tough, but possible, to implement. (What I fear is trying to optimize 4-5 limiting resources at once).
I agree with Euan though - we need to reduce speed limits and get back into the sweet spot of where our engines are most efficient. Small step, but it will help buy time. (for society)
Nate,
Our interstates are not two lane italian roads, people simply will not drive slower just because the law mandates it. There are not enough police to practically enforce this law. Look what happened in the '80s when they tried that before. Essentially, people broke the law anyway and also complained about it. Just let people determine their own gas mileage. Raise the gas tax, but don't put people in situations where the psychology is "I could go faster safely and comfortably, but someone else is just trying to nanny my consumption".
Don't think you can manage people's underlying psychology with blunt instruments like laws. All you create is a greater disrespect for all laws.
1)We have no choice. There are going to increasingly be more laws, whether you choose it or not.
2)I disagree - robust literature in social contract theory sugggests people (on average) LIKE laws, as long as they apply to everyone. The opposite of no laws is anarchy.
If I have time (though someone else is free to write a guest post), try and estimate average ICE efficiency of trucking and auto fleet and calculate how many gallons/barrels per year would be saved currently by dropping back to 55 vs how many hours this would cost (and of course, if we drop speed limit to 55, everyone will drive 63 instead of 73, to be 'just within the law'). I agree it is not going to happen this year, but lower speed limits will be enacted in near future when depletion regains center stage.
1) We always have a choice, unless you believe we can be made into hive mind collectives. Just because our choices may lead to ruin doesn't preclude our ability to choose. Some people may like living on a planet where half the population starves. Don't confuse your preferences for preferences of everybody else.
2) Very few laws can apply to everyone and frequently the government and courts make exceptions, which defeats the point of the laws. If you have enough money, you can frequently circumvent the penalties for violating laws, which basically means laws are created to punish the poor for the sins of the rich. As long as money = power, that's what the end result of laws will be. Think all environmental regulations make companies more responsible? Nope. BP, Exxon, and the majors will try for the most part to meet them because of liability, but Joe Oil co., if it doesn't make monetary sense, will ignore most regulations on the bet that they can get away with it long enough to make the money they want and then sell to someone else before they get in trouble.
I'm not going to argue with you that people won't drive slower than they currently are "just to be within the radius of the law", but if 70 means people drive 73 and 55 means people drive 63, on average, the respect for laws of this sort in general are eroded and eventually, if not effectively enforced, people will average higher and higher limits until eventually, everyone is breaking the law because "de facto", it isn't a law anymore and if we are making laws that aren't "laws", we're hurting the mentality of the populace to "all" laws. Its a bad idea and I supremely hope our leaders don't see things the way you do. Though with our current batch of looney tunes, I wouldn't be surprised if they try this again, much to the detriment of our country.
Huh? It's not my preference. I meant we (society) won't have a choice because oil and gas decline rates will be faster than demand drop eventually. It was not a qualitative statement. I suppose to be nitpicky we could also 'choose' to have 1/2 as many people on the roads and raise the speed limit to 90. I was just trying to say that some options (higher speed limits, more cars, more drivers) are going to be closed to us, not as individuals, but as society.
..or you could allow oil prices to climb to the point when people feel conservation is best and 55mph is their chosen speed. Right now, with oil prices low, you feel you must mandate conservation because of future scarcity. I feel this is the wrong path and the proper path is through price signals (gas taxes or oil pricing itself)
People can not freely choose to drive at the most energy-efficient speed of about 45 mph because that is so much slower than the averages speed on most highways (when they aren't in gridlock) that it would be extremely dangerous.
We have to start just ignoring people who persist in the childish notion that modern societies and markets can be completely free of regulation. As nate said, society without laws is anarchy, and I would add, a market without regulation is a hold up. (Well, as it turns out that's pretty much what the Madoff/Bush years have been). Their puerile ideology has been a total disaster for society and for the planet.
on the autobahn, speed differentials of 25-30mph are frequent and handled very well by professional drivers. The problem is not the speed, its the drivers and I'd rather see more stringent driving requirements in any case because someone can be just as dangerous at 55 as at 70.
Madoff/Bush years haven't been without regulation, they've been with loophole filled, poor incentivizing regulation. There were benefits to cheating the system set up by the system.
Accidents are going to happen. Do you really think that an accident at 70 mph is no more dangerous than one at 55 on average? Have any data to back such a bizarre claim up?
I agree that there should be more training and other requirements of drivers. (But, oops, wouldn't that require laws and aren't you against all laws?)
But lowering the speed limit is such an obvious and immediate solution, and your arguments against it so far do not seem to hold water.
I think the main problem is that people have gotten in the habit of going fast, and cars are set up to fulfill that desire. So there will be plenty of grumbling (at least) from a number of corners, but really we can't sit around till every last dimbulb figures out that we live in a world with limits, and that if we don't start living within those limits, we doom ourselves and our kids to a greatly degraded (at best) world.
That fuel efficiency chart above is nuts! Whoever gets past the second increment there needs to have their license removed. Anyone who thinks they can drive safely on a freeway consistently at 100 mph ....
Here in Ontario, Canada we just implemented a mandatory 105 kmh (65 mph) upper limit on heavy trucks on highways, enforced with modifications to engine controls. Truckers grumbled some but generally accepted it quietly and now they ALL travel at exactly 105 in sedate single file along one lane of road, no tedious (and risky) 15 minute passing sequences. Point is, no competition for them. So long as the next company can't out-perform their service (quicker delivery etc.) they don't seem to mind.
My proposed solution: your personal vehicle's top speed is fixed at the avg. EPA-published MPG burn rate. So a Hummer @19 MPG gets a big fine ticket if its speed reaches 25 mph anywhere. A Prius getting 50 MPG gets ticket$ after 60 mph. If you have an 80 MPG aero-scooter, then don't go over 100 mph. Adjust as necessary for overall public safety.
Imagine how industry would race to make high-efficiency vehicles. People would be frothing at the mouth for a chance to buy a scooter so they could commute faster.
Some more thoughts: The big semi-rigs, pickups and SUVs would be relegated to the right lanes going slow, and the left lanes would have the higher speed traffic. A Hummer @20 mph max would quickly lose its 'chrome penis cachet' if a battery golf cart, or a cheap, used $1,000 scooter, ATV, or small CC motorcycle could speed by with impunity in the faster lanes.
Thus, most people would quickly see the wisdom of having a vehicle for moving large loads or people Slowly & Safely, then a high gas mileage vehicle when they need to get somewhere more distant Faster. That is why I have a pickup, scooter, and bicycle. Now if Az would only allow lane-splitting to make two-wheels an even more efficient choice.
Not sure how that's different to now ? 4x4s are no movers and even worse round bends.
so a bike getting 70mpg wouldn't get a ticket until 90mph. Sport bikes for everyone!!
Hello GregTX,
Thxs for responding. Just carry this thought process out further. Since the heavy vehicles are legislatively forced to the slow lanes--> they quickly pound their lane into massive potholes, so that even at 20 mph it will be a bone-jarring, teeth rattling ride. Finally, the vaunted off-road capabilities of a Hummer will be put to everyday use till the vehicles fall apart.
The high speed lanes will last much, much longer due to the very light, high MPG vehicles not wearing out the roadway. Thus the truckers and big vehicles owner will eventually give up their lane so that it can have Smmooootth standard gauge rail or narrow gauge Spiderweb track installed. When asphalt & concrete becomes Unobtainium--just keep adding more smooth railtrack to keep people & goods moving.
"So there will be plenty of grumbling (at least) from a number of corners, but really we can't sit around till every last dimbulb figures out that we live in a world with limits, and that if we don't start living within those limits, we doom ourselves and our kids to a greatly degraded (at best) world."
So you accept that the real problem is the overpopulation problem. Now, what do you propose to solve the overpopulation problem?
I have a neighbor I don't like very much. I'm willing to help out...
*added the so that certain individuals with too literal minds wouldn't think I was being serious*
I agree... let me make my own cost/benefit analysis of which speed works best for me. As prices hit near $4 last summer, I noticed a lot more people in the right lane cruising along at 55 or so. More often than not, I'd pull in behind them and set the cruise control. If gasoline was $10, you can bet we'd be doing 45 (and car-pooling). Price incentives work!!
On the other hand,I have my doubts that local law enforcement is up to the task of justly enforcing a national 55 mph speed limit. No doubt minorities and out of towners will suffer the brunt of tickets (Bubba jr. and his jacked up 4x4 will get a warning) and local/state governments will waste the revenue windfall.
Furthermore, I think there are some scenarios in which enforcing a 55mph speed limit would actually increase the amount of fuel used.
I have observed that the quickest way to cause a fuel wasting traffic jam (or a wreck) in Houston is to park a police car on the side of the road. Traffic will go from flowing freely at 70mph to 5mph in a matter of minutes. My mpg at 70 is over 30, but sitting in traffic is probably less than 10. So actively enforcing a speed limit passed with the purpose of conserving fuel could actually increase fuel consumption on a busy freeway. A revenue nuetral gasoline tax is a much better way to go.
Nate,
GregTX is symbolic of the idea that the "right" of personal freedom is more important than any concept of "common good". Because so many US citizens agree with GregTX, the struggle for rational behavior, even in the face of serious PO and GW, will be extremely difficult. And, our "car culture" seems to be the height of personal freedom in the minds of most people.
As an advocate of bicycling as a viable form of transportation, GregTX, is a frightening person. It would seem that if he has enough personal wealth he is free to drive at higher speeds than financially constrainted folks. This is a major problem for those of us advocating that all school children walk or ride a bike to school - virtual elimination of school busing. As it stands, most parents will not allow their children to bike 5 or 10 miles to school in busy urban areas - they simply fear the risk of being hit by a car is just too high. I hope to see traffic that is so regulated that it is almost impossible to harm a walker or biker.
The vast majority of our citizens could easily bike 20 or 30 miles a day - but, they will not do it with today's motor vehicle environment. I believe a rational approach to transportation is to constrain personal motor vehicle usage in every way that is reasonably practical. Electic golf carts could replace a sizeable amount of daily motor vehicle traffic - but this is not going to satisfy GregTX because he "prefers" his speedy car.
Once again (broken record time), until the severity of the problem is really understood by the majority of our citizens, there will be no buy-in for the kinds of laws that are needed to significantly alter behaviour. And, I see no evidence that anything other than strong laws will prevent the serious consequences mentioned so often on TOD. My vote is to worry less about telling politicians what they need to do, and to spend more time on developing a crystal clear analysis of the problem and suggesting specific objectives. A one to two page document that we can all get behind to promote at all levels of government. Just imagine yourself sitting in front of a Senate panel and making your recommendations to Senators, some of whom have reason to be hostile to your ideas. The question will be: and what proof do you have that we need to take these drastic measures. You would need to answer with indisputable facts and have expert testimony of the highest credibility. Your answer needs to be very crisp and your logical beyond question.
GregTX is symbolic of the idea that the "right" of personal freedom is more important than any concept of "common good".
This is correct. I feel the "common good" is usually just one person's justification for restraining the freedom of another person. If I recall my Orwell correct, its an argument that "some people are more equal than others", their preferences being held at a greater value than my own.
Because so many US citizens agree with GregTX, the struggle for rational behavior, even in the face of serious PO and GW, will be extremely difficult. And, our "car culture" seems to be the height of personal freedom in the minds of most people.
What is irrational about wanting to move quickly from one faraway destination to another? We don't advocate "slow" trains or "slow" planes. I do enjoy driving cars and would pay a great deal more than others for that privilege, but I hold no grudge against trains or planes for transportation needs. Indeed, when I studied abroad in Europe, I biked and took trains everywhere. The system worked in that manner and I only drove when I just wanted to "drive". I would gladly give up my car for commuting if the price (in money and time)was right.
As an advocate of bicycling as a viable form of transportation, GregTX, is a frightening person. It would seem that if he has enough personal wealth he is free to drive at higher speeds than financially constrainted folks. This is a major problem for those of us advocating that all school children walk or ride a bike to school - virtual elimination of school busing. As it stands, most parents will not allow their children to bike 5 or 10 miles to school in busy urban areas - they simply fear the risk of being hit by a car is just too high. I hope to see traffic that is so regulated that it is almost impossible to harm a walker or biker.
I do not recall many students walking to school on the side of I-10? If you want to get rid of cars in the city, build better light rail and create more efficient busing, or wait until the pricing of gasoline is such that the demand for light rail and busing is such that traffic is eliminated. Or build cities with very little, high premium parking. Telling me I can't drive my car anymore simply because its possible that I might come anywhere near you is simply you expressing the belief that your desires are greater than my desires. I don't hold that to be a valid argument.
The vast majority of our citizens could easily bike 20 or 30 miles a day - but, they will not do it with today's motor vehicle environment. I believe a rational approach to transportation is to constrain personal motor vehicle usage in every way that is reasonably practical. Electic golf carts could replace a sizeable amount of daily motor vehicle traffic - but this is not going to satisfy GregTX because he "prefers" his speedy car.
We could also walk 20-30 miles per day. We wouldn't necessarily want to, but we could. Once again, you're merely stating that your preferences are superior to my preferences.
Once again (broken record time), until the severity of the problem is really understood by the majority of our citizens, there will be no buy-in for the kinds of laws that are needed to significantly alter behaviour. And, I see no evidence that anything other than strong laws will prevent the serious consequences mentioned so often on TOD.
You may see no evidence, but that doesn't mean that there aren't steps. The all or nothing approach may be what you advocate, but its certainly not the only option.
Your answer needs to be very crisp and your logical beyond question.
It certainly would be
GregTX, you seem to be oblivious to, or ignoring, the fact that some choices are not survivable.
You also are conflating personal laws with zero personal freedom. This is wrong. If the majority decides to survive while you decide to commit slow suicide, then your rights aren't abridged as long as you can still do what you want... somewhere else. Now, this logic is dependent upon the majority not having their heads up their arses, which admittedly is a bit of a stretch. Still, your basic thesis is wrong.
In this case - economic collapse, climate change - there is no choice but to live much more cooperatively than before. If a minority chooses to do as they wish, survival be damned, then the majority have a right to impose their will because you don't have the right to kill me, but I do have the right to stop you from killing me.
I am generally with you. I am utterly against the revision of FISA, the MCA and the "Patriot" Act. But we are not talking about rights when we talk about living below a certain carbon threshold. We are talking about the use of resources. Not all behaviors involve rights. You are acting as if they do.
Cheers
double
On the aspect of saving time, as gas prices increase (or as more people feel a responsibility to reduce their nation's energy dependence), people drive fewer long trips, and less local trips. Rush hour driving is often below 65 mph anyway due to at least some level of congestion.
55 mph can be simply another consideration to take into account when planning vacation/holiday time, which could encourage more use of rail, or deferral of distance transport altogether for that timeframe.
For the last 5 months or so, I've been driving at 55 mph when needing to go by highway, and have seen my 2000 Honda Insight gas mileage go from the low 60s up to a range between 75-85mpg with careful use of the gas pedal.
Someone correct me if I have the math wrong, but for every 100 miles highway driven you saved .49 gallons by going from 60 to 85 mpg (giving you fullest potential savings). At $3/gallon (another generous assumption) you saved $1.50. That same 100 miles at 55mph rather than 65 mph cost you time (Nate's point), exactly .28 hours (1.54 hours at 65mph vs. 1.82 at 55mph). To break even, your time would be valued at $5.26 per hour. If you value your time more than that, you are better off (at $3/gallon) going faster.
If gas were twice as expensive, the "cost per hour" breakpoint also doubles, making it more logical to slow down. We saw this bear out in actual travel behavior this last year, as drivers voluntarily slowed down and helped make 2008 one of the safest years on the highways since the 1940s (note that the cost of life and limb and the environment are not included in the typical market price of gas making it even more logical to increase a tax in order to make real such externalities).
pretty much, which is why you need to tackle the cost side, not the behavioral side.
In a world of unlimited wants and limited resources, the cost side IS the behavioral side.
Tragedy of the Commons
...and appointing someone to regulate those wants with limited sources is the tragedy of the elites. Why do you trust the government to allocate resources of a limited nature more than corporations? Governments have repeated proven unable to distribute limited goods over a long period of time. Markets, however, have proved much more resiliant.
Because corporations have ignored ALL environmental externalities, until the government STARTED to impose pollution, GHG etc restrictions. Im no fan of big government and am not confident they will do much better, but with no rules, the environment would quickly be summarily culled and transformed into concentrated social power (initially as profits). The economy is part of the environment, not the other way around.
However, a government no cognizant of the economic and behavioral results of their environmental regulations is just as bad as a corporation not cognizant of the environmental results of their economic and behavioral actions. I feel that blunt objects like laws direct on certain actions can have a negative impact in government's overall goals if they abuse the rule of law. I feel speed limits (really in general, but especially for environmental purposes when enforcement is already weak) constitutes such an abuse and the action that would be better would be to collect revenue from gas use (gas tax) rather than arbitrary law enforcement.
I feel the same thing about carbon trading, which formulates an arbitrary cap (punishing businesses that can't lobby hard enough for their cap) rather than a input tax, whose worst extent of arbitrariness is the basis for the formula to calculate the impact.
Laws are made too liberally these days and have adverse consequences due to inexact execution. Taxes, if properly executed (and absence of loopholes), have a notion of equal justice and incentivize much better.
We need less laws and better cost signals.
"I feel the same thing about carbon trading, which formulates an arbitrary cap (punishing businesses that can't lobby hard enough for their cap) rather than a input tax, whose worst extent of arbitrariness is the basis for the formula to calculate the impact."
Well, we can certainly agree here. But taxes are of course laws. And they are among the hardest to pass these days, thanks to years of Reagan-Voodoo economic ideology.
Yes, but taxes are a gentle shove rather than a smack in the face. While I personally abhor income taxes, they're a great deal more socially acceptable than say, an income limit (or 100% tax for income greater than X). Punishment laws are like income limits, only more arbitrary in most instances and harder to enforce.
Laws for the most socially unnacceptable things (murder, theft, rape, etc)
Taxes for the less socially unnacceptable things with equivalent punishments for tax evasion (drugs, pollutants, energy consumption products)
Government exists at the pleasure of the people (in a democratic society) and so trying to thwart the majority with a blunt object is one wy to find your government out of favor and out of power. Walk softly when trying to implement change or else you'll find it hard to walk at all.
"Yes, but taxes are a gentle shove rather than a smack in the face."
For you, perhaps. Given the vehemence with which they are opposed in many quarters, they seem to be a hot poker in the eye for lots of folks.
I like your point about gov. The question is what happens when the majority don't want to have to pay anything to support the gov?
I know of lots of otherwise conservative people who would be happy with lower speed limits because they try to drive conservatively but find it dangerous when others are whizzing by them.
A lower limit, by the way, is not a technically a new law--just an adjustment of an old one.
I like your point about gov. The question is what happens when the majority don't want to have to pay anything to support the gov?
If the majority of the people vote not to pay for externalities, externalities don't get paid for. What do you suggest? Violent revolution against the majority?
"Violent revolution against the majority?"
Something like that is already happening, but the violence is mostly economic.
The class war is pretty much over and most of us lost. A toast to you if you ended up on the other side of that one.
I wasn't aware going to engineering school put me in the midst of a class war...
We have taxes without loopholes? Only for the poor working stiff that can't afford a high octane tax accountant. Gas taxes will somehow get deducted from the taxable incomes of those who have top end tax help and the tax laws will be written to insure this happens. The tax accounting industry is well represented when any tax bill is enacted.
Gas taxes may be one of the best ways to enforce more efficient driving, but all sales taxes are extremely regressive--hitting the poorer harder and thus widening the real income gap.
Tough call for the egalitarian social reformer.
Only if they are not rebated. Rich people use a lot more energy and products of energy than poor people do. A straight per-worker rebate of petroleum/carbon taxes, perhaps as a deductible on FICA taxes, would leave the rich with a net payment and most of the poor with a net rebate.
You are right, there probably is a way to fairly distribute an energy tax. In practice such attempts in the tax system usually become ungodly complex and get bent around by the vested so as to thwart the original intent. Still it might be worth trying to make some such system function.
Maybe France can work it out first. We are likely to be rather occupied with the tax implications of trying to implement a functional health care system in the immediate future, I believe France already has one of those on line.
I'll second that. See my comment in the gas tax thread.
Gov't can use taxes as an influence on behavior. Want to slow people down, make gas taxes oppressive. Trying to artificially change behavior through a law is a recipie for disaster. For an example see prohibition.
To break even, your time would be valued at $5.26 per hour.
Yes, but the times I used the highway were normally 40 minutes or less, so this amounted to 5 minutes here and there, which is in the noise. I guess I could have spent that time doing work, but we waste much more time than that daily on the internet...
GregTx,
Cameras on interstates can solve that problem.
Rick
Then you have to monitor the cameras or put a program in place to monitor the cameras and you have to make sure the cameras aren't vandalized or misused (look up about the people in Britain that have gotten auto tickets from the camera because someone made plates to look like a certain car or swung something really fast by the camera while cars were passing). The moer layers of control you add to the system, the more layers of monitoring you must have to make sure the system works the way it should. Think about how many problems a small country like the UK has had with the cameras and then multiply that times 100 for a country the size of the US. It could work in Metro areas, but most metro areas already are <70 mph for environmental reasons (less emissions theoretically at 55mph). While I'll admit to distaste for speed limits of most kinds, I really do believe a system put in place is doomed to failure because people cannot be controlled to that degree effectively.
'people cannot be controlled to that degree effectively'
This is just a bizarre statement. We are controlled to a great degree effectively all the time, especially when driving. Do you think traffic lights can't work because "people cannot be controlled to that degree effectively"? There are any number of ways to enforce lower speed limits. Perhaps you personally have control issues you need to work on, but please don't project these onto everyone else.
psshah..traffic lights work because people associate the risk of running them in high traffic situations as personally dangerous and agree that when one comes to an intersection, physics agrees that two bodies cannot occupy the same space at the same time and thus people are in agreement that some sort of control is needed. Its personal benefit to allow signals to control an intersection. If you ever go to cities where traffic signals are remnents of times when they were once needed, but are no longer and tend to delay people uneccessarily, you will witness them frequently violated. Go to Flint, Michigan in the evening and tell me that stop lights aren't treated as stop signs because traffic is so low and enforcement is so poor that the timed lights are rediculous time wasters in such an enviornment. I don't stop because I see red. I stop because someone else might be seeing green. Speed limits only work when people agree that there is associated danger with exceeding them. If it is not personally dangerous to go faster, only the tenuous thread of law enforcement may stop you from going faster. if you are reasonably sure the risk of law enforcement is minimal, you'll speed as much as you feel is safe and economical vs. the time saved. Never assume that government dictates behavior. Government works with existing behavioral cues to help dictate a result, but fails when it tries to curb strong internal desires by force.
Methinks you are in for a big surprise. Even in the big state of Texas.
I doubt it, I see my theory panning out all around me. Mostly in government failures.
I would agree that there needs to be much more education on the danger inherent at driving at higher speeds and the increase in price. These will help in the enforcement of such laws.
I would love to live in a world where such education was sufficient. That does not seem to be the world in which we live, however.
You are clearly a speed lover. I wish you well with that. Do buckle up, though. (Unless that is something else you have ideological opposition to ;-)
And do avoid Ontario highways, where your speeding habits are VERY likely to net you a $10,000 to $15,000 fine plus loss of auto and loss of driving rights for a few years. (A street racing law which I think is entirely valid. I'd bet you're one of those ninnys dodging around from lane to lane and flashing headlights at all the others. Just pull em off. I don't mind some controlled-road speed rallying myself, but would never consider doing it on stock spindles with stock driveline components etc.)
I don't mind some controlled-road speed rallying myself, but would never consider doing it on stock spindles with stock driveline components etc.)
Its usually the tires that fail you first, ;)
Physics is a harsh mistress.
Wrong there. Every streetracing idiot (except you apparently) knows enough to buy Z tires. Very few know anything about real racing preparation.
But what about the people living in places where they have a 250 mile round trip drive (or more) to get to the grocery store or doctors office. 250 miles at 55 mph is 4.5 hours and 250 miles at 85 is under 3 hours.
The one size fits all in a country as diverse in make up geographically and demographically just isn't practical or reasonable.
The people in each state should have the right to set the limits as needed for the people and landscape.
Look back at the era of 55 mph speed limits and see what the actual speeds were in that era. In Arizona where I was living then the actual speed during the daytime was averaging 75 miles per hour and 65 at night time for the entire State. All the 55 mph speed limit did then was to make the vast majority of citizens lawbreakers unnecessarily. This kind of thing breeds an unhealthy perspective of the law in the citizens of a free country.
The elephant in the room on excessive energy consumption (and other consumption too) is excessive population. How about including dramatic reductions in immigration into the USA and internal programs to encourage fewer children being born here to solve the long term problems. With a population of 150 million instead of 300 million we would not be having any of the financial or energy problems that we are having now.
All these things about lower speed limits, increasing fuel taxes, etc... are just swatting mosquitoes in the room without putting screens on the windows and doors. As long as the population continues to increase while the energy decreases guarantees that there will be a very unpleasant social explosion of massive proportions
Keep in mind that excessive energy consumption is the elephant in the room, but we didn't get where we are today sitting in caves lighting the same fire repeatedly. Humans are a growth species and I think the better answer is to find more energy, not give up and return to what the necessarily all the our immediate surroundings provide. Conservation is the short term strategy to buy time comfortably and increase our efficiencies, but does not define long term success to me. Success is growth, consuming more energy efficiently per person and doing more, exploring space, colonizing other worlds, expanding. Alot here will disagree with me, but I feel that's the real definition of success for humankind.
You do not understand that exponential functions cannot continue indefinitely.
And your definition of "success" is devoid of meaning and extremely shallow IMO. If that is all humanity does, then I would classify "us" as a colossal failure.
Alan
Chalk it up to a difference of opinions..and while I see the current exponential function coming to a head, and practical steps need to be taken to the next point, I still feel we'll get there and continue growth to the benefit of humanity.
Greg,
I'm confused. I see your comments as sincere so perhaps it is a matter of definition and understanding limits.
Alan said:
I would take that a step further and say a linear function with a slope >0 can not continue indefinitely. Ergo, we have a different understanding of the term growth. IMO, "sustainable growth" is a time limited function at best and an oxymoron at worst.
Perhaps I am just a doomer, maybe the earth can support 12 billion people but I hope that you would agree that there is a limit so should we not prepare for and (hopefully) avoid that limit?
I appreciate your desire for independence. That's how I live, but it is a relatively new concept in the history of man and was only afforded by vast tracts of land that were only occupied by a few pesky natives. If you look at anthropology, cooperation and conformity has been the order of the day until recently.
Even if relative independence is possible, it requires personal responsibility as well, which is in short supply from the top down (Lehman Bros, AIG, et al). Die hards who refuse to bow to the government and wear a seat belt are very glad for the state troopers, the paramedics and the evac chopper that try to put their sorry a$$ back together. They never say, "My bad! I screwed up, just leave me here to die".
"You're not the boss of me" likely won't fly in the upcoming years unless you have some serious alpha aspirations.
Time will tell.
Pragma, (only first comment is a reply to your post)
If you are talking in terms of growth then it isn't sustainable and I agree with your statement in the context you using it. If talking in terms of cumulative births (over time for example and slope>1), then equilibrium would be reached when death rates=birth rates. The point of "apparent equilibrium" may not be sustainable though, and no one in "power" dares state what the "sustainable equilibrium" might be. The exponential function is usually quoted because it is the law of natural unrestrained growth and is very agressive. It could be viewed as a "linear" function with the slope gradually increased in proportion to the the dependant variable (something like that in any case). The conclusion from this is the slope will eventually become so steep it will not be sustainable since the slope is a function of itself (=to in the case of ex ). In otherwords things go bang rather more quickly when compared to most other functions and I can see no such thing as exponential growth ever being sustainable. Our politicians however disagree with me since they talk of steady economic growth. Thank the lord for recesions, the alternative is a catastrophe.
Note, by definition, I am aware equlibrium is sustainable. That is why I make reference to "apparent sustainability" which would be in effect a plateau until spare resources get used up.
As for colonising other planets, I do not share that faith, even though Stephen Hawking talks about it. The chances of finding a planet in time and getting there as well is and theme for the optimists.
continue growth to the benefit of humanity.
A broader and wiser understanding would rephrase that to
continue attempted growth to the detriment of humanity, including all future generations.
Your goals are NOT worth striving for, so your means to reach them are likewise not worth doing, even if we could.
Alan
I disagree, but can't deny that you could be right. That won't change my course, however.
The problem ia that young women's instincts give the "GregTX" types, with unpacked mufflers and 250 lb amplifiers in the truck box, a reproductive advantage. Conclusion. Humans ARE dumb as yeast. (reproduce to the limit of available resources, then crash completely).
Europeans certainly have a different view of things.
Americans do not want lower speed limits, more gasoline taxes, or electric commuter trains. We certainly do not care about "healing diplomatic wounds".
The problems with the big 3 auto manufacturers are 1. the labor unions control - given to them by the US Congress. And 2. the high price of gasoline from (Congress) not allowing increased US oil production.
Obama has talked a lot about PHEVs. This is the one technology that could save the industrialized world from the coming peak oil disaster. Hopefully, there will be enough EVs and PHEVs placed into service to make up for the current depletion rates. Could someone please study this and come up with a graph?
Conservationist --
You just really can't be serious. Have you been paying attention...at all?
Hi conservationist, you have been a member for 22 weeks now. Have you been reading the articles on this website at all? You can't possibly believe what you have posted here, do you?
I suggest you do the research yourself and you will find that the graphs do not support your claims that "This is the one technology that could save the industrialized world from the coming peak oil disaster."
Yes, conservationist, the ceo's of these corporations are obviously geniuses who would have shaped their companies into models of perfect companies if it weren't for those rascally unions! They proved their genius when they all flew out to D.C. in their private jets to beg for a bailout.
Sarcasm aside, as others seem to recognize here, you seem to be blinded by some kind of ideology. Or maybe you are one of those ceo's!!??
THANKS EUAN
I HAD ALSO AN OLD VOLVO DURING 20 YEARS [ BUT I DID BUY A VERY LITTLE RECENT FRENCH GOOD CAR PEUGEOT ] [ SHE WAS TO OLD ]
I ALSO TRY TO REDUCE MY TRAVELS [ ONLY FOR WORK AT 95% ]
BUT YOU DON T RESPOND AT
1 YOUR FOOTPRINT
2 YOUR QUANTITY OF OIL USED [ YOUR CAR ISN T FOSSIL FUEL POWERED ????????????? ]
3 THIS QUESTIONS ARE POSED ON A POLITE SENSE
FOR THE POLITICIANS
VERY FEW HOPE !
Joseph, I don't fully grasp your line of questioning but heres some information from an old post I wrote more than two years ago:
Oil consumption in the Big 4 EU economies
I'd guess that my personal energy consumption has been higher than the EU average, maybe 15 bbls / year (oil only not counting coal and nat gas etc). This is higher than the average in developing countries by over a factor of 10 but still likely to be about half of the US average.
The important point would be that I feel I could likely cut my energy consumption by half without significant impact upon my living standards. Now you may ask why i don't simply do this? The answer is that I am comfortably off and energy costs are not a major issue. I'm aware that many environmentally concerned citizens opt to slash their environmental impact footprint voluntarily. But i am not an environmental activist, and in keeping with the majority of the population require government action to enforce behavioral changes upon me. If flying becomes too expensive then I will fly less and if speed limits are reduced I will drive more slowly and in so doing my energy consumption will be reduced - and this will have the effect of reducing upwards pressure on global energy prices - which will return.
As noted down the thread, just the recent 10 year increase (1997 to 2007) in US consumption of 2.1 mbpd exceeds current total UK consumption.
You certainly don't need to cut your energy consumption in order to perform a valid analysis of our energy situation. In addition, obviously, your life style is your choice. However, I find it surprising that you categorize yourself with what you call the majority. Your personal footprint is of little consequence except for the fact that you have chosen to make various recommendations to the Government that would help us decrease consumption of fossil fuels, including oil.
It seems like, in general, that people that walk the walk are more effective than those who are mainly just talking the talk.
Personally, I have done a lot to cut my consumption but could do a lot more so I am not simply throwing stones.
I get your point that we need governmental action to mitigate the tragedy of the commons.
Al Gore is somewhat of a hero to me, but even I wince when I contemplate his massive, personal carbon footprint.
Perhaps it is not fair, but many will simply ignore your recommentations once they realize that you feel you do not have a personal responsibility to cut back without government mandates.
Anyway, best hopes that your personal carbon footprint will not reduce your effectiveness because you have a good message.
Dear Joseph-Emile,
Since it is quite apparent that you do not hold native cultural fluency in the Anglo Saxon vernacular, I am willing to take at face value,your statement, that you are interested in a polite non confrontational discourse. However I must tell you that(perhaps you are unaware of this fact)when you use *ALL CAPS* when writing on the "Intertubes", this is construed as a form of shouting. Therefore it is automatically taken as not being polite.
Cheers!
Eaun,
i have seen the data on this site on several occasions, but need a refresher. what are the projected energy savings of reducing the speed limit to 55 mph? I have a 21 yr old camray and consistently get 40+ mpg at this speed.
What is a camray? Sounds dangerous.
Nate just posted this up the thread.
(Source)
What is the speed limit in the US? Its pretty straight forward to calculate the savings using this chart.
In the UK the speed limit is 70 mph on most highways. 60 mph on country roads and 30 mph round town. The 70 mph limit is not really enforced, but an 80+ limit is. Hence, most drive sub 80 on the highways.
It looks like fuel savings might be over 30% going from "80" to and enforced 55.
at least on that sample of mostly European high end vehicles. I would bet on big trucks and old gas guzzlers it may be even more.
I looked at that closely and this is the thought that struck me:
"Holy crap, they got a Golf TDI up to almost 140 MPH?!"
Point 1)
EP,
I think VW have had a 1.9 PD TDI 150 in the uk for some time. They operate at about 2 bar of boost, which means some serious pressures within in the engine combustion chamber. Whether of not one is a fan of the ICE, it is an amazing piece of kit. I know its the oil film, but how the piston rings and crank shaft bearings hold together for so long is a miracle. The 1.9 PD TDI 130 is very common in the UK, in Golfs and Passats. They have gone common rail now (or are soon to do so) and they call them 2.0 not 1.9
Point 2)
Euan,
Looking at the graphs not much point in owning a Prius then!
I've got a Passat TDI with the 1.9 (pre-common rail), and good familiarity with the impressive torque that beast produces. I'm still amazed that the Golf chassis is aerodynamically efficient enough to hit that speed on ~140 HP.
EP,
Sorry I misread your comment I thought you said BHP not MPH hence my waffling on about HP. I missed my last eye test appointment. Anyway I have been in a Golf PD TDI 130 but not a 150 and they're enough to make you have to change your pants! I don't know what the top speed is.
Always like reading your posts Euan, and this one is no exception. For decades I have believed if U.S. fuel prices were closer to on a par with Europe's we would have been making far better decisions for resource allocation. But this is America
Sensible as this sounds I do believe that large of a ramp up in fuel taxes in four years would be very hard for Americans to swallow. The new Republican president after Obama's single term would roll them back immediately (that would be one of his or her easiest to keep campaign promises). If Obama is going to do much good he is going to have to have two terms. That makes all this extremely important policy work that much trickier.
We no doubt need modern electric rail service thoroughly linking our more populated areas but admirable as France's system may be the area of metropolitan France is hardly larger than the states of New York and California combined while France's population is about 1/6 greater than that of these two of our three most populous states.
I am aware of how far apart these two states are and that they are not generally grouped when speaking of real electric rail service but when you realize Texas, the other of our top three most populated states, is located more or less half way between California and New York and is bigger than California and two New Yorks put together and that there are a whole lot of other states in the spaces between these three states you start to get an American's perspective. What are those other very important regions going to get while all this money gets pumped into the East Coast corridor's transportation system? I am not saying it can't be done, just that the balancing act is crucial to success.
We did implement a national speed limit of 55 mph during Carter's single term, it worked for a while but was generally ignored eventually. I do imagine a slower one could be implemented along with other necessary rationing if we were again in the situation we had the last time the U.S. used rationing--that time we were dedicating every possible scrap of our GDP to building the machines and other necessities for ourselves and our allies to use in the fight that we were having (with the other major powers that were so unwise as to be unallied with us) over control of all the world's resources .
But I don't mean to sound pessimistic. I am really not. The defense angle could well be the best lever to move our people away from foreign oil and possibly even start the push toward a long term sustainable energy policy. The trick of course then is to use the defense angle while keeping militarism from taking hold.
I wonder why none of the three advise letters have mentioned the most important factor of our current situation: overpopulation. A world population growing with 80 million annually just isn't going to work. Controlling our numbers should be #1 on the UN 'to-do-list'. It is not just oil, gas, coal and therefore energy that are peaking. Phosphorus and metals are also becoming scarce.
We should listen more to Prof. A. Bartlett, or our tombstone might just say: "They were creative and capable of doing incredible things, had they only figured out the exponential function...."
a)because these other recommendations, though politically unpopular, are not political suicide and
b)overconsumption is much higher of a problem than overpopulation. As I pointed out in my letter, we use 39 times the primary energy as Phillipinos, yet subjective well being studies (which granted are....subjective), show they are every bit as happy as Americans. Another data point showing we are adaptation-executors not rational utility maximizers - we 'execute' behaviors that caused our ancestors to succeed - most of these require very little energy and are in the social/friends/family arena - but a few are evolutionary hangovers, that have large footprints in energy and resource terms.
Overpopulation is important but not nearly as much as 'what' and 'how' the people in question consume.
I would wager a good deal of money that if Filipinos came to Minnesota and tried to maintain the same use of heating fuel as they did back home, their happiness would deteriorate rapidly.
Unless they had super-insulated homes. This is the direction we are going to have to go anyway up here in the frozen north if we're going to have livable cities, towns...
http://news.bostonherald.com/business/real_estate/view/2009_01_17_Mass__...
Super-insulated homes still require heat from e.g. appliances to maintain a comfortable temperature. 1500 watts isn't much, but it's probably several times the average electric consumption of the Phillipines, and will have a correspondingly higher input of primary energy.
that was funny and I understand your point - but weather in Phillipines can't be too different than Texas or Florida who actually use much more energy per capita than Minnesotans. IOW more electricity is spent staying cool than heating oil/nat gas spent staying warm, ceteris paribus. I would imagine Phillipino homes are not chock full of air conditioners.
But my point is valid nonetheless - tons of countries use less energy and are as or more happy - the nordic countries are all HAPPIER (according to SWB studies) and have colder climes.
Its not your point about happiness that is wrong, its the fact that people are completely ignoring the number one reason for our problems. You say it is political suicide to talk about controlling our numbers. Wasn't this the same case with peak oil a couple of decades ago? If we are too afraid to talk about it right now, we can't benefit from it in the future.
What 'we' are doing here is applying a filter to the message we want people to read. We leave certain major aspects of the problem out of the message so it will be easier to read (not as confronting).
Don't get me wrong Nate, you contribute to this site on a immense scale. I read your posts with great interest, i just don't get why you seem so obsessed with the happiness factor. Of all our future problems, happiness seem so trivial. Spreading the Real message about the problem seems most important even if it generates a lot of cognitive dissonance in Washington.
The "real problem" that is the problem any one of us should be most concerned about, is the problem we contribute to most. If you have or are thinking about having or are surrounded by people having, multiple kids, then that indeed is the big problem you should be working hardest on. I am guessing that this is not the case for most here. Most of us have the problem that we consume way too much of the world's vanishing resources and contribute way to much to the world's vanishing pollution.
If you are most concerned about a problem that you and the people around you are not contributing much to, you are probably in some level of denial and avoidance of responsibility. It is always easier to notice the speck in someone else's eye rather than the log in one's own, or so I've heard from somewhere or other.
Having said that, I would be interested to know what you propose should be done about the very real problem of pop explosion.
True. I live in Holland and with 16 million inhabitants on a 42k km2 surface its one of the most densely populated countries. So in that respect I may be more concerned about overpopulation than overconsumption. I'm also concerned about overconsumption of resources and both should be on top of our list. We have many programs in Holland that stimulate people to reduce their consumption. I have reduced my own electricity bill by 70% in the last year, so it will defiantly help.
What I think is important, especially in a letter to the president of the united states, is just mentioning the problem. By not mentioning it at all, were not helping anyone. Obama is going to be one of the most influential people in a time when some real decisions have to be made. He is the one that can place this topic (overpopulation) on the international agenda.
Zero population growth is going to happen, whether we like it or not. The only question is, will we stop it or will nature do the job for us? What can we do? We can create laws: No children before the age of 40, for example. Only one child per family. International treaties that limit the number of people per country and set goals to reduce the number in the next decade and so on..
I'm not stupid. I know that the odds of this actually happening are very small. Child birth is far to sacred in the world. We can't even agree on Co2 emissions, so I don't think we will ever agree on population control. Still, dont you think we should at least try?
The US population is increasing with roughly 3 million people every year. So no matter how many solar panels or wind turbines you place, every year enough people are born, and enter the US, to completely reduce the effect of sustainable energy additions to the grid. So in that respect, reducing overconsumption seems a good idea. But I doubt if it will have any significant impact in the long run. Nature is very likely going to solve the problem for us.
The extremes in Texas are much greater than those in the coastal Phillipines. It's the extremes which determine how much insulation we need and how much energy to keep buildings within the comfort zone.
This is not to say that Texas buildings could not be far more efficient (electric DHW when sun pounds on a surface just feet away - oy veh!), but you can't compare a continental semi-desert to a tropical island on a one-to-one basis.
All of this can be achieved by replacing income taxes with carbon (and possibly oil scarcity) taxes. Existing social security systems can assist lower income people; and governments can reduce income taxes from the bottom up if that is politically expediant. This way no extra cost will be imposed on the economy and people should be no better or worse off; and they will be heavily incented to use less fossil fuels and use more renewables at every level in the economy.
Here are some recent annual numbers from the EIA, showing the annual rate of change over a 10 year period (1997 to 2007) for the US:
Consumption: +1.1%/year (18.6 mbpd to 20.7)
Crude Production: -2.4%/year
Net Imports: +2.9%/year
Net Imports Chart:
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/img/charts/US_net_imports_large.png
Note that a low rate of increase in consumption still produced a 2.1 mbpd increase in consumption over a 10 year period (that pesky exponential growth thing). Just this increase of 2.1 mbpd over a 10 year period exceeds the UK's 2007 total liquids consumption of 1.8 mbpd.
The most recent four week running average of total U.S. product supplied was 19.7 mbpd, versus 20.2 for the same time period in early 2007. I think that the EIA is estimating a U.S. crude production decline of about 350,000 bpd over this time period. Note that in order to show a long term decline in net imports, we first have to reduce consumption enough to offset the decline in domestic production.
What was the change in consumption per person?
With a continuing increase in population you can naturally expect that you are going to have an increase in total consumption, even if there is a small decrease in consumption per person.
Good observation. US population has grown on average a bit over 1% per year. As such, our increase in liquids has pretty much kept pace with population. Additionally, with the influx of Mexicans and others from Central America (an immigration phenomenon quite a bit larger in scale than what Europeans experience in their own countries), and the consequential flow of dollars down south, it would be reasonable to look at all of NA as an integrating economic unit that will likely continue until some sort of formal integrated monetary institution is developed.
All of which means that trying to draw a strictly nationalistic boundary around US oil consumption (as if all that matters is the oil consumption from the 50 states) is too limited a view.
I doubt that either fuel taxes will increase or that battery cars will take off during the Obama first term. There are too many car dependent people with no jobs or low paid jobs, who work night shift or too far out of town for public transport. That means they must have a cheap car and cheap fuel. I also doubt there is a practical way to discriminate between job related travel and recreational travel. Maybe that flight or Sunday drive is needed for mental health or to make sure you don't breed with your close relatives.
What may work is that you get back some of your fuel tax both fast and in restricted form. Suppose for example a night shift security guard spends $150 a week ($100 of it fuel tax) on fuel because there is no bus to take to work. Make it so they get back that $100 almost in real time as rebates for home insulation, solar water heating or smart meter installation. That will ease the hurt and lower other household bills. However the rich dude who keeps an SUV in the inner suburbs may not want that stuff. Since the restricted rebate list doesn't include jacuzzis or pool heaters they may not be able to get back their fuel tax contribution. Therefore there is
a/ more tax revenue for green shifting
b/ it goes to the more needy.
Without such conditions fuel tax hikes won't happen.
Good refund ideas. It is my understanding that something like these are included in most gas-tax proposals.
The problems you point out in the first paragraph are real, but there are a lot of creative solutions that can work for many of these situations. Regular old car-pooling is one. More innovative is "smart hitch-hiking" that uses social network and other technology to hook people up who want to share driving or car use. I'm sure there are other ideas that could work out. Ultimately, we have to start resettling in much denser communities to facilitate sustainable transportation systems. This doesn't happen--our current suburban and exurban sprawl has developed over fifty years of cheap oil and insane policies.
But it needn't take as long as many seem to think. Many cities have possibility for further density, and of course wind and other new sources wealth in the country will bring many back to rural and small town living. The priority should be that these folks have sustainable means of getting around and getting food planted, harvested, and to market.
One way or another, there are interesting years ahead.
"Maybe that flight or Sunday drive is needed for mental health or to make sure you don't breed with your close relatives".
The adult male Australian aborigine has to walk three weeks from his tribe to find a mate. It is all about means and the relative scales between cultural behaviours (I do not apologise for British English spelling). The Aborigines live in the 'Never never'. We have lived in the 'never enough, forever'.
This sounds like something out of a game scenario. Administration in the real world would create significant waste in a tax trade system like this. Even if it was 100% efficient (like most government tax programs--yeh right) that security guard who very likely rents would have no rememdy to his new tax burden from the items mentioned above. The immediate rebate through Social Security taxes (mentioned by someone else earlier) with the empoyee share running, what is it now, 7.5 % means to get his $100 weekly energy tax back he would need to be making over $1300 a week. Heck of a good security guard gig. In addition that would leave him paying nothing into Soc Sec and we all know how solvent that fund is in the first place.
Man this is the best system I have seen proposed since the flat tax.
Would just becoming indentured for life be an option, it might prove an attractive choice.
Since essentially all domestic production is required for non-fuel use, elimination of oil imports means the elimination of oil for transportation.
https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php Energy Flows USA 2002 Lawrence Livermore
The energy flow diagrams are not meant to show exactly where energy goes; they are illustrations meant to show relative volumes. A chart showing the actual flow would be incomprehensibly complex (in a visual sense). All sectors would be (are being) impacted by reduced energy use, some more than others.
The results of the Millennium Institute modeling were not exactly what I epxected a priori.
The USA is headed towards 3rd World status with BAU (Argentina, not Haiti).
A combination of a massive push for Renewable Energy & Non-Oil Transportation# results in very good results for GDP, employment, reduced Greenhouse Gases, oil imports and national security.
http://www.millenniuminstitute.net/
# Non-Oil Transportation includes electrified & expanded inter-city (freight) railroads, Urban Rail (subways/Rapid, Light, Commuter, streetcars), bicycling and walkable neighborhoods (TOD).
Best Hopes for Getting People to Listen,
Alan
Sounds very pollyanna, Alan. Liebig's alone makes that very unlikely. Very much too BAU. I'd love to know what the input assumptions were. I don't suppose they will release any of the info to the public?
I don't suppose my proposal was discussed?
Cheers
Did you write up a lessons-learned, so to speak, comparing your a priori beliefs with the modeled results?
If/when I have time.
The model has over 500 feedback loops, with time delays and non-linear responses (discussed in detail in Andrea's dissertation). The EROEI feedback loops were done with Dr. Charlie Hall's collaboration and ASPO sponsorship.
Not enough policy responses have been modeled (note ccpo) because all efforts are pro bono publico (no funding).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Hope you can find the time, and make it a keypost. A short description of lessons learned would help the rest of us to understand the insights garnered, and why some presumptions would prove to be wrong.
"Raising gasoline taxes will..."
Is there really any evidence that higher cost = lower consumption? In the UK with 80% tax I still find it far cheaper to drive than catch the train. If people were really bothered about the cost they would voluntarily drive slower to get the improved efficiency you mention.
"your country (and mine) is nearly bankrupt and needs to raise taxation revenues to balance the books."
I wish economics was that simple. I don't understand the half of it but if the government takes more tax from me, I buy less so someone else earns less and they pay less tax. It all cancels out in the end. The same money just goes round and round in different circles.
I don't want to sound negative but whatever the solution is will not be about taxation, legislation or anything that requires a majority consensus. What we need is a big carrot to make people *choose* to consume less, not a big stick to *force* them to. There is only one direction towards a carrot but many directions away from a stick.
Lately, we have discovered a fairly effective way to cut consumption -- a world wide recession.
Regardless of your observation, higher taxes will reduce consumption. However, given the inelasticity of demand, a minimum tax of $10 per gallon will be required in the U.S.
Nothing will be done, however, and it is probably a waste of electrons and brain cells to even be discussing this.
I personally suspect that europeans buy more efficient cars because mileage is measured in l/km instead of mpg. 10l/100km (23.5 mpg) is an important emotional barrier for fuel consumption. Two digits is where a car is considered to be a gaz guzzler.
I don't know about demand elasticity in the US, but here in Vienna and Austria in general it is clear that demand is very elastic, just not based on price. During the european football champoinship this summer the ever busy inner ring road of Vienna was shut down for the event. Pretty much nobody complained, traffic went down, life went on. Similar things happen in winter when conditions for driving are unpleasant or somewhat dangerous: fewer cars on the road, yet nobody is missing anything.
Higher prices don't seem to have the same effect though. The reaction of car drivers is to complain, either about the governement in the case of a tax increase, or against evil speculators, oil companies and the arabs etc. But driving habits go pretty much unchanged.
In the UK we still use MPG as a bench mark for vehicle efficacy. Our road speed limits are still in Miles per hour, and distances in miles. We have never gone totally metric in our minds and have just won some sort of rediculous legal battle to retain the use imperial weights, which the EU tried to stop us doing. Petrol has been sold in litres for about 20 years (I think, time flies) but I always convert it to gallons (4.546 litres). Remember my car in the US will do about 3.79/4.546 less miles/gallon!
Are you adding the capex on your car, insurance, road tax, servicing, repairs etc? And part of the problem is that rail travel is too expensive - especially compared with flying.
I think the American gas guzzler mentality is founded on cheap gasoline, and the problems with making it more expensive have more to do with adaptation - howls from certain quarters that they cannot afford higher gas prices. Well they could be afforded with smaller cars, and living closer to work - but folks would need time to adapt to that new reality.
I am a great believer in the need to balance budgets - so either tax take needs to rise or government spend needs to fall. I think the days of lowering taxes, to boost growth to boost tax revenues (Thatcher / Reagan economics) may be coming to an end since we now have an energy ceiling somewhere above our heads.
What kind of carrot would you suggest using?
Be fair.
Europeans have only slightly fewer cars (600 per 1000 people)than Americans(700 per 1000)
despite having much, much hirer fuel prices.
Also despite having more mass transit the number of passenger miles per year in mass transit has been flat for 50 years at around 500 billion passenger km per year while private cars in Europe have soared to +4000 billion passenger km per year.
European cities look a lot more like the US with massive highway systems.
The Japanese look slightly different (think people pushers packing trains) but they still have 400 cars per 1000 people.
I don't see that anybody has a better product
than the car(as judged by what people buy rather than what they should buy). Proposals to put people back into subways and buses looks like running the movie backwards rather than new solutions.
The best solution is simply to outlaw inefficient cars based on GHG emissions now that CO2 is a pollutant. The government can test their cars for CO2 when they fail, they must junk them and will get a tax credit for a new car. If fleet average went from 20 mpg to 60 mpg that would reduce gasoline consumption by 2/3. Obviously a 60 mpg car is minimally polluting. $25000 per car x 130 million households is $160 billion dollars per year over 20 years.
Detroit plus imports is about 6.5 million cars per year, converted all to making ~60 mpg hybrids. True, 80 million excess cars would just disappear but every family would have one. People just can't give up cars and to suggest otherwise is dreaming IMO. Of course the reduction in autos will largely eliminate the congestion problems that justify typical mass transit solutions.
I own a car (useful for hurricane evacs and occasional in city trips) but use it for about 3,000 VMT/year (I could drive less, especially when post-K rebuilding is finished).
30% of the US population wants to move to TOD today. I propose building the "T" for the "OD" and simply satisfying existing market demand.
You use pan-EU statistics, and most of the EU (Italy & UK for example) has done very little to enhance mass transit in recent decades. High gas taxes perversely induce gov'ts to keep people driving absent other forces (more VMT > more tax revenue). So I see little to be learned from pan-EU stats.
It will be "interesting" to see French statistics after they build 1,500 km more of tram lines in every French town of 100,000 or larger. And they finish their pro-bicycling initiatives.
And what if there is an "oil emergency" (House of Saud chased out, US $ not accepted for oil, USA must pay for oil with exports) and all those cars must do without oil.
My proposal is to build a Non-Oil Transportation system in parallel with our existing oil based system. Let them compete until oil becomes "constrained".
Alan
That is quite the construction proposal. Do you have any cost figures. Would it paralell every country road, the major interstates, the rail lines? We have been building our oil based transport system for more than a century. How quickly do you think we can bang together a parallel system?
France may be a large and relatively sparsely populated country by western European standards but it is only about a third larger than California while it has near double that state's population (the two do have a similar sized economies). The real solution will be quite the complex mix of transport types with the personal vehicle style of powered transport always playing a significant role in this country I believe.
Expand (the large $) and electrify (the small $) the roughly 36,000 miles of mainline RR, $250 billion (based on 5 recent upgrades).
Upgrade 14,000 miles for 110-125 mph passenger service and 90-100 mph express freight service - $250 billion (based on CSX proposal DC-Miami).
Urban Rail - $60 billion for 20 years - $1.2 trillion
Bicycling - Not enough billions to worry about
About the cost of bailing out a dozen AIGs.
Best Hopes,
Alan
No time like the present to get started. Those kind of numbers don't sound high after the bank debacle that is for sure. At least somebody will go to work when we spend it, not to mention the down the road upside.
Keep above water,
Luke
"Well they could be afforded with smaller cars, and living closer to work - but folks would need time to adapt to that new reality."
I believe the average time an American stays in a house is seven years. I assume that this time period has shortened quite a bit since the housing crisis started, and that it is even shorter for renters. So I'm guessing the overall average is under five years.
This is time, but not that much time. And of course various gov and econ incentives could further hasten movement.
The movement into the suburbs was quite rapid and of course carefully planned. A move to walkable communities would be the same in reverse--actually much easier since much less infrastructure need be built.
Mostly, though, people have to change expectations. Most American families have more than one car. Do both (or all) cars really need to be ICE capable of traveling 300+ miles on a filling and of going over 100 mph, even those capabilities are rarely if ever required on a daily basis. For most families in or near cities, one of those cars could be electric with a range of 50 miles on a charge (driven conservatively) and a maximum speed of about 40mph. Such cars are cheap and available now. What is needed is merely a slight change in the idea of appropriate technology for the job at hand, to borrow at term from Schumacher.
A comparison I've heard is that ICE cars are like three-story painters ladders, but almost all the time most of us only need a small step stool. Yet we are carrying the huge ladders around all the time, and in the process making a wreck of our houses.
Substantially higher sales taxes will be the final nail in the coffin of the lower middle class. Margaret and Ronnie did fine job setting the western world up for the reestablishment of the lord/vassal/peasant model.
Maybe all will be much happier when they know their lot in life from birth. What do you think?
Does the EU even have car mpg / fleet standards or is taxation the de facto milage standard?
WeekendPeak
My problem with all of this is that I simply do not trust a government that is bought and paid for by special interests. We have witnessed it caving to special interests time after time. We have witnessed it giving special deals, especially no-bid contracts, to its friends. We have seen standards set that can only be met by the top-tier companies. We have witnessed it screw those at the bottom of society and reward those at the top.
Why would any of this be different in the case of energy? This is obviously a rhetorical question. It wouldn't be IMO. Here's my initial program - close overseas bases, bring the troops home and down-size the military. The military uses vast quantities of FF. Somewhere I think I read it was around 30% of US usage but I could be wrong. Further, the military now consumes 4.8% of GDP. In 1940, it was 2.5% of GDP. That would free up a lot of bucks for new programs.
Todd
Todd - I agree with the power down empire concept but as many point out when I say this, that will add a million or so to the current unemployed.
I have to believe that a big part of the "create new jobs" will be in the military.
We can use a whole lot more farmers, teachers, people to install super-insulation...
There's plenty of work to do. Just not a system to incentivize (or mandate) it.
I would love to see the O man use his vaunted oratorical skills to take up where Carter left off--convince us to back away from empire and embrace a somewhat more austere but ultimately deeply richer lifestyle.
Unfortunately he seems to be talking about more roads, rather than fewer. And further investment into hopeless cases (militarily) like Afghanistan.
We could quickly move to a much less energy intensive way of living, and to a much smaller ecological footprint. The recession is already moving us in that direction--people are starting to car-pool and use mass transit...Add a diet much lower on the food chain, and mostly local and increasingly organic, aggressive building insulation, and other simple conservation measures and more alternative energy sources... and we can reach the goal of energy independence and a much smaller ecological footprint in a very few years.
Unfortunately, the me-first-ism, the hatred of gov, of laws, of taxes...that has become the dominant paradigm over the last thirty years will pose as constant sources of resistance to these modest adjustments to enormous challenges.
It should be made clear that the alternative to starting to live within our means is the necessity to wage constant and ever more and greater resource wars and of course greater and greater climate instability and general ecological collapse. Unfortunately, most people seem completely happy with those consequences as long as they can continue their over-consuming lifestyle a bit longer.
"My problem with all of this is that I simply do not trust a government that is bought and paid for by special interests". Right on Todd. I respect and admire the positivity that Nate and his 'drummers', and all the caring bloggers that contribute here.
But whatever happens will be a direct result of money fisted, political muscle. The rich and powerful will do their bloody-minded best to preserve the status quo until they have either passed away, or are safely away in their bioraft. I am firmly of the Jarrod Haine opinion of collapse before there is any imperative for meaningful change.
That is not to say this is all meaningless. However,if any of us are around in a few years, and we are still able to access computer data, we will have a good laugh about how optimistic we were.
So much has been written by people like James Kunstler about the American Way of Life being unsustainable. Even this new president, voted in with the concept of “change”, does not recognize that all the institutions which the Bush administration tried to prop up with TARP, are the very problem that MUST be changed. Any economic system based upon continuous, unlimited growth cannot function in a supporting environment that has limited resources.
Unless the “System” recognizes those limitations, the “System” cannot change and the people who are in control of that “System” are incapable of understanding that problem. They are not educated in the Natural Sciences! They don’t understand the concept that Limiting Factors within the Environment dictate the Rules!
Economics controls this country and educates people into believing the Environment is separate from the Economic World. “Externalities” which are not included when costs are evaluated. Economics fails to realize money is not the basis for an economy - energy
is!
Economics ignores the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics and bases decisions on the concept of unlimited energy and resources.
These are the Laws which must be taught to all citizens – The Fundamental Laws of Physics! Our Economic Laws must follow the same Laws of the Universe (Laws of God) that guides the Moon around the Earth and our space craft to other planets. The Laws of Thermodynamics control our world as much as the Law of Gravity does. Does anyone proclaim that we can defy Gravity and survive? Yet people daily live a lifestyle based upon unlimited energy. The Laws of Thermodynamics state that energy cannot be created or destroyed but can change forms. We survive today in the US because we have learned how to change forms of energy to do work for us but fail to recognize that we are dependent on the Sun for that energy. Thermodynamics tells us what limitations exist regarding how we us energy. Until Economics, Society, and Government recognize what Physics allows us to do, no effective Change can occur in the United States.
Just to play devils advocate, why isn't coal and natural gas sustainable? It certainly is less expensive than any of the alternatives. Where will the money come from?
These are the arguments industry will provide our new President. They have a much louder voice than you do.
If the goal is to end the use of imported oil then a high tariff is the way to go. If the goal is to replace all petroleum use then rationing is the way to go. Lower speed limits and CAFE would not be needed if everyone knew that they could only buy a limited amount or go to the extra expense of buying someone else's share. If people know that next year their share would be less then changes would happen.
Euan; excellent article!
One thing I would add is that population is the common denominator to the problem of energy and resource limits, with economic sustainability and a decent quality of life as our ultimate goal. Thus, leadership regarding the issue of exponential population growth should be of correspondingly great concern.
Also, I like to point out that sustainable approaches to energy and natural resources can lead to an economy in which the undesirable products of pollution, ecological degradation and climate change are effectively addressed and minimized.
Here are some thoughts that came to mind while reading your suggestions for our new leaders:
Can political and business leaders be sufficiently educated with regard to ecological limits, energy limits, and population growth?
Will political and business leaders enact policies based on timely information regarding the limits to growth and consumption?
Have any stepped up yet?
If political and business leaders enact proactive measures, set examples, educate and lead toward a sustainable economy, will constituent citizens willingly comply with such policies?
Why would a person slow their car down or take a dirt road off in some unfamiliar direction, much less get out and walk, if they couldn't see any reason not to continue at full throttle to the crest of the next hill??? Maybe they have heard warnings about steep decline on the other side of the mountain and no gas stations, but the people voicing such ideas are but a small fraction of society... And there are so many others making equally gloomy claims about other things...
If we really are bumping up against ecological and resource limits, if there really is a convergence of limiting factors on human civilization manifesting in real ways, right now, only to become worse, then...
Will it be too late to avoid wide ranging economic and social collapse by the time those wielding the most influence over resources and labor force finally choose to truly lead?
Would it be too late to lessen the impact of an ecological overshoot and collapse scenario if substantial change toward energy efficiency, conservation, and the building of sustainable infrastructure was delayed until severe economic impacts really did occur on a large scale, making the need for change more widely understood?
Regarding the true nature of the economic equation, I think there remains a lot of educating to do, communication and persuasion on a vast scale, and no time to waste.
Peace
Schuyler
" Will it be too late to avoid wide ranging economic and social collapse by the time those wielding the most influence over resources and labor force finally choose to truly lead?
Would it be too late to lessen the impact of an ecological overshoot and collapse scenario if substantial change toward energy efficiency, conservation, and the building of sustainable infrastructure was delayed until severe economic impacts really did occur on a large scale, making the need for change more widely understood?"
Almost surely yes to both.
"Regarding the true nature of the economic equation, I think there remains a lot of educating to do, communication and persuasion on a vast scale, and no time to waste."
Good idea. If you see any major initiatives in this direction (besides the excellent work done here) let us know.
If you see any major initiatives in this direction (besides the excellent work done here) let us know.
I see a possibility developing with the MI work (cover story in Washington Monthly on one overlooked aspect, various DC lobbying groups, etc.)
Best Hopes,
Alan
Let's see. According to the IEA production of conventional oil from existing fields will decline from something over 70mbd to about 28mbd by 2030. They expect this to be made up through production from fields yet to be developed and others yet to be found. They calculate production from these fields to be something like 40mbd by 2030. That's four Saudi Arabias to stay where we are now. These are very optimistic numbers. I think we know this is not going to happen. Lack of money, lack of people, and lack of infrastructure will make it impossible. We will have less in 2030 than we have now, I suspect about half of what we have now. The decline rate on existing fields is something like 5%. That will increase as they pass plateau. If the overall decline rate went up to 7% we would have half of what we have now in 2019 or so.
The point is this. The future really can look nothing like the present. Speed limit at 55? That will conserve a lot of gas. But all that will do is put us in a tight position in 2030 or earlier with a lot less energy to maneuver with. All the proposals here tacitly suppose that somebody in the future is going to find a real solution. They are stop-gap measures. But we have to be the grown ups. So here are my suggestions.
1)Proposals that just put off the problem to a later date are bogus.
2)Proposals must envision a way for civilization to continue into an indeterminate future.
1.Who really cares if civilized life goes on for another 20 or 30 or even 50 years if it is then extinguished. Are we just looking for the species to have one big last party consisting mostly of horrible wars?
3)No proposal that does not include a way to reduce population in both rich and poor countries will work. If we find some energy solution that allows everyone to continue more or less as they are now then, with increases in population, a new energy crunch will inevitably develop. And there are a lot of problems besides energy that the huge human population causes. Conservation without a decline in population is just a stop-gap measure. I realize full well what the implications of this are. But, if we are going to be honest, there is no other way. The idea is to somehow reduce the birth rate. Population is going to decline anyway, one way or another.
Is this unrealistic? Well then perhaps the continuation of human life is unrealistic.
Euan, did you ever heard of a man called Keynes? How on earth can you suggest higher taxes in depression time. If you would have said higher gasoline taxes with an equally lower income taxes it would have make sense. Do you even know what kind of death spiral you are talking about? When govts increase taxes it reduce disposable income which inturn reduce both household consumption and business investment which result in both lower goods and services being produced and higher unemployment which inturn reduce disposable income and so on.
Please do some calculations about your carbon foot print etc. If you really really want your words to have an effect you have to practise what you teach. Its one thing making beautiful presentations at aspo conferences and writing articles and another to give off the luxurious and tempting life style you and other american and european members of tod are enjoying.
I am a computer engineer but I gave off my career and moved to this little farm of mine because I want to teach people by practise what kind of life style they should be living. None in my ancestors till many centuries (500+ years) back ever done farming, they used to be merchants, but I started learning farming and began to eat what my farm can produce. I keep my diet as much local as is humanly possible. There are only a few things I take from outside my village, those things are salt, my laptop etc. I had put all the money I had to buy this little farm of mine. I had tried to earn money out of it but I can't really compete with the "cheap" cotton produced at rival farms using modern agriculture.
How hard it really is for toders to move back to a farm? You people I think are richer than me and can easily buy 20+ acres. I am living a life in my tiny 5 acres. You people can make it in your 20 acres with all your inefficiences.
What is the meaning of lecturing others about their energy consumptions and carbon foot prints and arranging and attending conferences when you people yourself not want to power down. How many people who read this article can honestly claim they have done anything significant after reading all this stuff? Ok, you have better insulated your house. Wow, thats hilarious how easily you have let yourself miss the whole idea of peak oil and powering down. Why not learn to warm yourself not the building. Why not just wear woollen hats when it get cold and burn a few logs in the one and only fire place in living room.
Oh, you think you can easily shift to an alternative source of energy like wind or solar. Think again. Its not something you can let your fantasies play with. Try to calculate how much investment is needed to have the new system in place. Oh, and do you really really think its going to work? Do it sound natural and real to you to sit back and think 25 years in future you would still be somehow having electricity, some kind of car and centrally heating and cooling systems in your houses and work places, do you think your kind of job which rely on heavy energy usage can sustain? Do this sound real or do the idea that we had fossil fuels for just once and there is no replacement or alternative to it. It was a bank account given to humans for once only. Once you consume it its gone. The party is already over. The stage, tables, chairs, fancy lights and decorations are being taken away. Wake up!
Consider this post as a hard but sincere advice from a well wisher. You europeans and americans had done a lot of damage to not just physical environment of our beautiful planet but also the eons-old traditions of taking only as much from earth as it can easily provide. Your life style which is imposed on us through our corrupt govts you install, buy and puppet around and your vampire corporate empires is total disaster. You had not killed precious wild life and destroyed forests but also flamed greed, selfishness, show-off, vulgarity etc. You are still not giving off your corrupt life style.
Well, stop posting on the Western corrupt internet then you idiot. You're getting boring now - there are planty of other sites to vent your spleen at not being allowed into the US.
Wisdom, you've totally lost me here.
I think you want to solve today's problems using yesterday's thinking. The USA must become more energy efficient or it will simply perish. Higher energy prices at this time will for sure drive sectors of the economy into the ground. But the energy guzzling bits of the US economy are already extinct - the few survivors are simply waiting to die.
In my part of Scotland, virtually all our electricity comes form hydro and most of the rest come from nuclear - so I suggest those wishing to lower their carbon footprint move here.
I think you'll find that it is you that is lecturing me about my carbon footprint and that it has never entered my head to lecture anyone on such matters - believing it to be a rather ineffective approach.
Well 20+ acres good land (and it was you that advised me that it had to be good land) + house will cost me £500K. I have had kids at school - 1 now at University, the other will leave home in 18 months. So its not quite so easy to just up sticks and go to the country - which I would dearly like to do. meanwhile I'm working towards getting a position at University where I hope I can bring greater influence to bear on the political decision making process - than being a simple blogger. Or maybe you think European politicians have matters in hand and are not in need of some guidance.
I know times are tough and trust you and your family are doing OK. Obama was inaugurated today and offers hope. But where there is not enough energy there is no hope. I presume you would like to see the US and Europe cut energy consumption?
From the viewpoint of a TOD regular, this "letter" is well written and summarizes key issues.
However, from the viewpoint of an American citizen, the recommendations embedded therein are DOA.
As Obama has already (it would appear) decided that raising gasoline taxes at this time are onerous, the point is moot. The decision (if it has indeed been made as suggested by the press) will be based purely on political calculations and has nothing to do with theoretical propositions towards efficiency (or lack thereof.)
Any US politician, if they are to be a good politician, are captors of their electorate. Key Obama supporters include the unions whose livelihoods will be impacted from proposed taxes. One poster upstream almost had it right (wrt. the US automobile industry) in blaming "the unions." A more accurate analysis would be that the management/owners of the US automobile industry were in a symbiotic relationship with the unions (especially the union leaders) to keep the status quo.
This is because humans don't like to change, contrary to President-elect Obama's campaign slogan.
Thus I find it highly unlikely that a gasoline tax will ever be established in the US that would satisfy European theoreticians. On the contrary, we see that the proposed stimulus plan will include significant resources to build roads and to keep suburban development moving forward.
If one wants to advise the Obama administration, I'd say a more prudent approach would be to couch the issue in terms of finance, and especially wrt the US exposure to the whims of foreign investors who are expected to pick up a large fraction of new US debt. E.g., the US will have to become more efficient overall as the Chinese may not buy that much more US bonds/bills. Thus, perhaps, to deal with the issue of oil un-availability one could try an indirect method of taxation of oil, where less efficient industries/workers are taxed more than efficient ones.
to FMMAGYAR
dear
1
effectively i was absolutely NOT INFORMED that writing " in CAPS " was a form of shouting !?
Probably only in anglo-saxon world !
TOO MUCH SUSCEPTIBILITY ??
for me , it was only for a BETTER reading , for the reader , and so , for a RESPECT of the treader
2 i believe ONLY the men DOING FOR THEM , what they PROPOSE FOR THE OTHERS
Not wishing to divert attention from the problems of air travel but can we also hear it for concrete? The production of Ordinary Portland Cement uses more fossil fuel and emits more CO2 that air travel. There are less polluting substitutes for most uses (except perhaps airport runways).
I thought most people here had already realized there was nothing gained the last time we had a 55mph speed limit. Likewise, there was nothing lost by moving it up to 70.
Show me a chart where VMT per barrel of oil changed dramatically.
Now if you cant produce any data to support your claim, then you best start sticking your claims where the sun dont shine, because it is exactly that kind of thinking that compounds problems.
A chart that shows fuel economy at 55 mph vs 70 mph is not data to support your claim. If that data were relevant, then it would show up in a VMT per barrel chart.
I added a PS on Jevons Paradox which I believe deals with this issue. And also discuss tradable energy quotas which deals with it more. There was no global shortage of oil the last time you had a 55 mph limit.
Great post. You all might be interested in reading my 8 suggestions for President Obama and Congress.
SUGGESTION NO. 8: KEEP GORDON GEKKO’S HANDS OFF SOLAR
SUGGESTION NO. 7: PENNIES FROM HEAVEN
SUGGESTION NO. 6: APPOINT A BUBBLE CZAR
SUGGESTION NO. 5: TRY SOLAR ALCHEMY
SUGGESTION NO. 4: INSULATION STIMULATION
SUGGESTION NO. 3: THE CHILDREN’S FOREST
SUGGESTION NO. 2: TEACH THE CHILDREN
SUGGESTION NO. 1: PUT SOLAR PANELS WHERE THE SUN SHINES
These suggestions arise out of my 35 years of experience in trying to help solar energy leave the runway.
Read all my posts at http://deathstroke.net/?page_id=33.
Now there is a succinct explanation of how The Market and the Invisible Hand work their mysterious magic to save mankind from itself.